[dragon11]

if I play udca and 3/5 lead. what should I lead from xxx or xx? for example:

♠:K743
♥:542
♦:83
♣:Q842

♠:K73
♥:J5
♦:852
♣:Q863

vs 4H contract.if I want to lead from ♦ for two hand ,which card should I lead?


best regards

wayne

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

playing 3/5, from xxx play the 3rd, from xx
play high.

UDCA has nothing to do with it, except that it
meshes well with 3/5, because you give count
via low high to show an odd length in the first
case and high low to show an even length.


With kind regards
Marlowe

[dragon11]

hi Marlowe

it means UDCA don't employ at open lead position, do it?


bese wishs

wayne

[mike777]

try to never lead from xxx in suit contract if pard did not bid suit...next hand...I lead almost anything else.

[P_Marlowe]

dragon11, on Feb 5 2007, 03:11 AM, said:

hi Marlowe

it means UDCA don't employ at open lead position, do it?


bese wishs

wayne

Hi,

yes UDCA is not a convention for opening leads.

UDCA is a convention, which is used by by the defenders,
who play the 2nd, 3rd or 4th card to a trick,
to signal attidude, i.e. you like / dislike the (opening)
lead or to signal length.

3/5 leads are length based opening leads, but you could
also play (opening) leads, which are attidude based,
in fact, leads in later rounds are quite often attidude
based.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

mike777, on Feb 5 2007, 03:20 AM, said:

try to never lead from xxx in suit contract if pard did not bid suit...next hand...I lead almost anything else.

and I would say, that a unbid suit, in which I hold xxx
is a strong candidate, if I indend to go passive.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[dragon11]

Dear Marlowe

thanks a lot for your answer
I see now.

Sincerely
wayne

[pclayton]

mike777, on Feb 5 2007, 12:20 AM, said:

try to never lead from xxx in suit contract if pard did not bid suit...next hand...I lead almost anything else.

Funny, xxx in an unbid has becomes one of my favorite leads against MP part-scores.

[MFA]

Leading from xxx is ok. Generelly, I tend to lead aggressively, though.

[SoTired]

I HATE middle card leads. I don't understand their fascination. Under NO circumstances would I EVER open lead the middle card from 3. Make a decision, have some <male body part>, lead low to say 3 or high to say no honors.

Obviously, with 83, you lead the 8 and UDCA has nothing to do with it.

With 852, you have 2 choices. 2 is the normal lead. Tell partner we have 3 cards in the suit. But if you think it is more important that partner know you have no honors and don't care about misleading partner about your length, then lead the 8.

[Badmonster]

I've been thinking a lot about the what to lead from three small issue. I have a theory. If I lead low p knows I have an odd number. P is more likely to be able to place the honors from the bidding than the distribution in a side suit. Therefore low is more informative.

I'd love some feedback on a) my theory and the religious issue of what to lead from this holding. If possible I'd like to know why people like top of nothing, why people like mud and why smarter people than I like the bottom of three lead.

[brianshark]

The problem with "low to show count, high to discourage in the suit" is how is partner to tell that you have led count instead of small from an honour? And if you lead high, how is partner to tell that you don't have a doubleton?

There's nothing wrong with leading MUD if that's what you have agreed and it's often obvious by the second trick that your partner has neither doubleton nor honour.

But any agreement works in it's situation if there is agreement about it. There's plenty of sources for inferences. Far more than most non-experts can process anyway.

[SoTired]

brianshark, on Feb 6 2007, 10:09 AM, said:

The problem with "low to show count, high to discourage in the suit" is how is partner to tell that you have led count instead of small from an honour? And if you lead high, how is partner to tell that you don't have a doubleton?

There's nothing wrong with leading MUD if that's what you have agreed and it's often obvious by the second trick that your partner has neither doubleton nor honour.

But any agreement works in it's situation if there is agreement about it. There's plenty of sources for inferences. Far more than most non-experts can process anyway.

This implies that having an agreement is what counts and any agreement is just as good as any other agreement.

This is patently false and a common situation proves it. Many novices don't understand reverses, so they have an agreement that reverses do not show any extra strength. So in the auction 1D 1S 2H 3D, opener is playing a 3-level contract on a simple part-score with a dubious fit. The agreement about reverses may prevent reverse strength confusion, but puts the partnership in poor contracts.

I believe the same applies to MUD. The MUD agreement is played only because it is a cute acronym. If you lead the middle card from 3, partner may notice the missing small card and play you for a doubleton. OR partner may not be able to determine if there is missing small card and play you for an honor or leading from 4th best. It takes 2 cards for partner to determine that the leader has more than 2 cards in the suit and 3 cards to determine that the leader has no honors. This may be far too late in the hand.

Recently against MUD leaders, I declared a hand where dummy had ♦QJ10x and I had 2 small in a major suit contract (I forget the exact hand). The MUD diam lead caused 3rd hand to cash the 2nd honor trying for a ruff, thus setting up dummy's diam for discards. If the opening lead had been small from 3, 3rd hand would make the obvious shift establishing winners before I could set up the suit for discards.

It is rare you can determine exactly what information partner will need. But leading small from 3 or top from 3 gives partner some absolute information. MUD leads are ambiguity by design.

[MFA]

Quote

But leading small from 3 or top from 3 gives partner some absolute information. MUD leads are ambiguity by design.

Well, you can never avoid ambiguity.
If you lead low from xxx, it is hard to distinguish between xxx and Hxxx. That may cost on other deals.

[P_Marlowe]

SoTired, on Feb 6 2007, 11:13 AM, said:

I believe the same applies to MUD. The MUD agreement is played only because it is a cute acronym.
<snip>
It is rare you can determine exactly what information partner will need. But leading small from 3 or top from 3 gives partner some absolute information. MUD leads are ambiguity by design.

No.

Playing MUD leads, you put more weight on the
attidude aspect instead of the length information.

MUD is similar to 2nd and 4th, the later being
length based, which are is a system as good as 3/5.

With kind regards
Marlowe